im all for giving a placebo to people where appropriate, they have been shown to be a powerful cure-all.
PLacebos have been shown to be effective at reducing patient reported symptoms. They are not very effective at reducing measurable symptoms, and not effective at improving outcomes.
On the other hand, they are effective at reducing the patient's trust in their doctor, and bringing back the doctor paternalism of yore.
True, but the discussion was about whether to report security flaws, or to keep them secret in the hopes that they can be used to create jailbreaks when the flaws present exploited have been fixed. That, of course, leaves the last sentence in my GPP as little more than an incoherent rant. Ah, well, it was early when I wrote it, and I clearly hadn't had enough coffee.
By the way, are there any transparent plastics that are suitable for 3D printing? Biocompatible?
PLA, which is on of the most used plastics for 3D printing, is transparent and biocompatible to the degree of being biodegradable. It is used for making implantable "molds" that are slowly replaced with tissue as they break down (OK, not really what you want as a skull).
This would clearly be the case if Apple did not insist on locking down devices in ways the consumers don't want. If there were, say, a menu option for "allow installation from unknown sources", there would be no excuse for sitting on bugs. As it is now, it is muddier: On the one hand, it is a security flaw that should be patched. On the other hand, it is a way to ensure that they can keep using their hardware in the way they want to.
Of course, the easy way around the dilemma would be to insist on only paying money for hardware you actually own, not quasi-lease, which is the only option Apple wants for iOS hardware.
... take someone's copyrighted work without paying them for it. Or, abet the taking and distribution of copyrighted work. It's really very simple and has nothing at all to do with freedom of speech.
Of course it has something to do with freedom of speech. I am not free to quote the entirety of Twilight in this post, thus I am limited in my choice of what to put in it. You might be OK with this limitation (even be thrilled, considering what you might else have had to endure), but it is a limitation of how I am allowed to express myself.
Doesn't there need to be some sort of pretense involved for it to be counterfeiting? I.e., if TPB had said "this is a legitimate copy from Sony", it would have been counterfeiting, but as they didn't, it is at most aiding in copyright infringement?
I would prefer if illegal evidence garthering was punished like any other crime, but the evidence garthered could still used. Jail time would be a more powerful deterrent than havibg your evidence thrown out. However, I have no confidence that the guilty cops would receive justice, so perhaps your suggestion works better in practice.
I never understood the sofa part. If the woman has a problem, why is it the man who has to sleep elsewhere? I don't understand why men would put up with that, or put up with women who thought it was OK to treat them like that.
It's something Linux geeks have trouble admitting, but it is the sole reason Linux usage has not skyrocketed in adoption.
I would say that "Windows was installed when I bought the computer" and "Windows is needed to run $proprietary software" are the two major reasons for Linux usage not to skyrocket. In my experience, Linux is much closer to just working than Windows (I have no experience with OSX, but if we are talking skyrocketing, Windows users must be the target).
Lasers disperse given enough distance. IIRC, 1 IR laser with a 1 m mirror will have a 10 m diameter once it reaches the moon. The asteroid is going to be much farther away, so the dispersion will be much larger.
Lasers disperse given enough distance. IIRC, using a 1 m mirror for focusing a IR laser, you could hit a 10 m spot on the moon, but the asteroid is going to be much, much farther away. You are not going to cause any ablation.
The lack of information is exactly what makes the gravity tractor elegant: It assumes nothing except for the mass and velocity of the asteroid, so it works regardless of the internal structure.
Firstly, directly pushing an asteroid is not easy, as the tend to spin and/or be fragile. The gravity tractor makes no assumption on the internal structure of the asteroid, so less knowledge is needed before the mission can be launched.
Secondly, hitting the sun is hard, counterintuitive as it might seem. You need to get rid of a lot of energy in order to get anything close to the sun, and when it gets there, it will still be going very fast, and thus probably miss.
Hmm, I see that the WP article about photodisintegration you linked to does mention stars of that mass. The hypernovas could be what Phil Plait meant by "incredibly violent paroxysms that are second only to the star going supernova". Anyway, I am going to withdraw my objection, as I am not going to disagree with neither Phil PLait, nor with Wikipedia in this matter.
The only way I am aware of that 0/0 can make sense is by applying L'Hôpital's rule, where the value depends on which two function you choose to divide.
Same goes for photography...same camera, settings, direction, time of day, physical location etc...you end up with the same shot (as this article eludes to)....very difficult to tell the difference between two works of craft produced in the same way.
However....you take two draughtsman (sketch artist, not architectural)...with the same years of experience, give them the same pencil, same paper, same light, same subject.....you get vastly different results.
For photography, you mentioned all of the things directly influencing the end product. For drawing, you mentioned all of the things indirectly influencing it. If two draughtsmen made the same movements with the pencil, the resulting sketches would be identical. If you asked two photographers to make a picture of the same model, the photos could be as different as the two sketches you mentioned.
Re:It's one of few anonymous ways to obtain bitcoi
on
World's First Bitcoin ATM
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Because some of your customers prefer to pay in them, and will go to your competition if you don't accept them?
Though that ultimately comes down to "in what ways are they better for anyone than traditional money". I guess I can see four answers to that: (illusion of) anonymity (see: Silk Road), speed of transfer over long distances (physical money beat this, but can't be used over the internet. Banks can take a long time to transfer money, if you count the time they can take them back), lack of censorship (Blocking payments to e.g. Wikileaks would have been much harder with bitcoins than with VISA/Mastercard), and moving money to and from places with little financial infrastructure (they are easier to use than the cell phone credits I hear are used to move money around certain African countries).
Whether this will make up for the downsides of Bitcoin depends on how big these downsides will be in the future, and how the well the banks will respond to the competition.
It seems bitcoins would be the easiest (and cheapest) way to transfer money to and from places without much financial infrastructure. That makes it a non-zero sum game. This also means that it might not (completely) collapse, as there is real utility in it.
I have heard of a better, though more complicated solution: You fill out three ballots, so that the selections you want is marked on two, and the selection you don't want is marked on one (a computer is probably needed to check this). Each ballot have a unique serial number. You hand in all three, and get a copy of one of them (it isn't noted which one). The ballots are counted, and 1/3 of the number of ballots is subtracted from all total. All ballots are made public. Everyone can check the count, and throwing away ballots comes with the risk that someone have saved one of those ballots. However, you cannot prove what you have voted, as you only have one of your ballots, and all three is needed to tell what you voted. This means that you cannot be forced to vote in a certain way.
Slashdot Mirror
im all for giving a placebo to people where appropriate, they have been shown to be a powerful cure-all.
PLacebos have been shown to be effective at reducing patient reported symptoms. They are not very effective at reducing measurable symptoms, and not effective at improving outcomes.
On the other hand, they are effective at reducing the patient's trust in their doctor, and bringing back the doctor paternalism of yore.
True, but the discussion was about whether to report security flaws, or to keep them secret in the hopes that they can be used to create jailbreaks when the flaws present exploited have been fixed. That, of course, leaves the last sentence in my GPP as little more than an incoherent rant. Ah, well, it was early when I wrote it, and I clearly hadn't had enough coffee.
By the way, are there any transparent plastics that are suitable for 3D printing? Biocompatible?
PLA, which is on of the most used plastics for 3D printing, is transparent and biocompatible to the degree of being biodegradable. It is used for making implantable "molds" that are slowly replaced with tissue as they break down (OK, not really what you want as a skull).
This would clearly be the case if Apple did not insist on locking down devices in ways the consumers don't want. If there were, say, a menu option for "allow installation from unknown sources", there would be no excuse for sitting on bugs. As it is now, it is muddier: On the one hand, it is a security flaw that should be patched. On the other hand, it is a way to ensure that they can keep using their hardware in the way they want to.
Of course, the easy way around the dilemma would be to insist on only paying money for hardware you actually own, not quasi-lease, which is the only option Apple wants for iOS hardware.
... take someone's copyrighted work without paying them for it. Or, abet the taking and distribution of copyrighted work. It's really very simple and has nothing at all to do with freedom of speech.
Of course it has something to do with freedom of speech. I am not free to quote the entirety of Twilight in this post, thus I am limited in my choice of what to put in it. You might be OK with this limitation (even be thrilled, considering what you might else have had to endure), but it is a limitation of how I am allowed to express myself.
Doesn't there need to be some sort of pretense involved for it to be counterfeiting? I.e., if TPB had said "this is a legitimate copy from Sony", it would have been counterfeiting, but as they didn't, it is at most aiding in copyright infringement?
In which market does Apple have a monopoly which they use to gain an advantage for their browser?
I think slashdot have a nofollow tag set, so even links to other domains won't count for page rank.
I would prefer if illegal evidence garthering was punished like any other crime, but the evidence garthered could still used. Jail time would be a more powerful deterrent than havibg your evidence thrown out. However, I have no confidence that the guilty cops would receive justice, so perhaps your suggestion works better in practice.
In the words of Agatha Heterodyne:"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from technology. "
I never understood the sofa part. If the woman has a problem, why is it the man who has to sleep elsewhere? I don't understand why men would put up with that, or put up with women who thought it was OK to treat them like that.
It's something Linux geeks have trouble admitting, but it is the sole reason Linux usage has not skyrocketed in adoption.
I would say that "Windows was installed when I bought the computer" and "Windows is needed to run $proprietary software" are the two major reasons for Linux usage not to skyrocket. In my experience, Linux is much closer to just working than Windows (I have no experience with OSX, but if we are talking skyrocketing, Windows users must be the target).
That depends on whether you interpret "odds" in a frequentistic or a Bayesian context.
This isn't about atmosphere. This is about a diffraction limited beam. The atmosphere dispersion comes on top of the diffraction dispersion.
Lasers disperse given enough distance. IIRC, 1 IR laser with a 1 m mirror will have a 10 m diameter once it reaches the moon. The asteroid is going to be much farther away, so the dispersion will be much larger.
Lasers disperse given enough distance. IIRC, using a 1 m mirror for focusing a IR laser, you could hit a 10 m spot on the moon, but the asteroid is going to be much, much farther away. You are not going to cause any ablation.
The lack of information is exactly what makes the gravity tractor elegant: It assumes nothing except for the mass and velocity of the asteroid, so it works regardless of the internal structure.
Firstly, directly pushing an asteroid is not easy, as the tend to spin and/or be fragile. The gravity tractor makes no assumption on the internal structure of the asteroid, so less knowledge is needed before the mission can be launched.
Secondly, hitting the sun is hard, counterintuitive as it might seem. You need to get rid of a lot of energy in order to get anything close to the sun, and when it gets there, it will still be going very fast, and thus probably miss.
Hmm, I see that the WP article about photodisintegration you linked to does mention stars of that mass. The hypernovas could be what Phil Plait meant by "incredibly violent paroxysms that are second only to the star going supernova". Anyway, I am going to withdraw my objection, as I am not going to disagree with neither Phil PLait, nor with Wikipedia in this matter.
Star can't be heavier than 100 solar masses, as the solar wind (stellar wind?) becomes so strong that it tears the star apart.
The only way I am aware of that 0/0 can make sense is by applying L'Hôpital's rule, where the value depends on which two function you choose to divide.
Same goes for photography...same camera, settings, direction, time of day, physical location etc...you end up with the same shot (as this article eludes to)....very difficult to tell the difference between two works of craft produced in the same way.
However....you take two draughtsman (sketch artist, not architectural)...with the same years of experience, give them the same pencil, same paper, same light, same subject.....you get vastly different results.
For photography, you mentioned all of the things directly influencing the end product. For drawing, you mentioned all of the things indirectly influencing it. If two draughtsmen made the same movements with the pencil, the resulting sketches would be identical. If you asked two photographers to make a picture of the same model, the photos could be as different as the two sketches you mentioned.
Because some of your customers prefer to pay in them, and will go to your competition if you don't accept them?
Though that ultimately comes down to "in what ways are they better for anyone than traditional money". I guess I can see four answers to that: (illusion of) anonymity (see: Silk Road), speed of transfer over long distances (physical money beat this, but can't be used over the internet. Banks can take a long time to transfer money, if you count the time they can take them back), lack of censorship (Blocking payments to e.g. Wikileaks would have been much harder with bitcoins than with VISA/Mastercard), and moving money to and from places with little financial infrastructure (they are easier to use than the cell phone credits I hear are used to move money around certain African countries).
Whether this will make up for the downsides of Bitcoin depends on how big these downsides will be in the future, and how the well the banks will respond to the competition.
It seems bitcoins would be the easiest (and cheapest) way to transfer money to and from places without much financial infrastructure. That makes it a non-zero sum game. This also means that it might not (completely) collapse, as there is real utility in it.
I have heard of a better, though more complicated solution: You fill out three ballots, so that the selections you want is marked on two, and the selection you don't want is marked on one (a computer is probably needed to check this). Each ballot have a unique serial number. You hand in all three, and get a copy of one of them (it isn't noted which one). The ballots are counted, and 1/3 of the number of ballots is subtracted from all total. All ballots are made public. Everyone can check the count, and throwing away ballots comes with the risk that someone have saved one of those ballots. However, you cannot prove what you have voted, as you only have one of your ballots, and all three is needed to tell what you voted. This means that you cannot be forced to vote in a certain way.
Looking at how the world runs, I would imagine that the only possible god is like Cthulhu: Mad, probably evil, and favoring cephalopods over mammals.